How Does Lead Attenuate 0.5 MeV Photons Over 1.3 cm?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the fraction of 0.5 MeV photons absorbed after passing through 1.3 cm of lead, using the linear attenuation coefficient of 0.5 cm-1. The formula I = I0e^(-ut) is applied, leading to a calculation that suggests a fraction of approximately 0.52 rather than the initially stated 3/5. Participants emphasize that lead is effective for shielding due to its high density and atomic number, which facilitate photon attenuation by interaction with lead atoms. There is confusion regarding the exponent in the calculation, with suggestions to keep I0 as an unknown intensity since the ratio of intensities will cancel out. The conversation highlights the importance of precise calculations in understanding photon attenuation.
tastytau
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Calculate the fraction of photons absorbed from an attenuated beam of 0.5 MeV photons after it has gone through 1.3 cm of lead? The linear attenuation coefficient of lead for 0.5 MeV photons is 0.5 cm-1. Why is lead a good choice as a material for shielding?

Homework Equations



I = I0e-ut

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I = 0.5 MeV e-(0.5/cmx1.3cm)

I = 0.26 = 0.3 MeV

Fraction = 3/5

Lead is effective at attenuating photons because it has a high density and high atomic number. Many photons are attenuated in lead by striking atoms.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
0.5 MeV is not an intensity. And something went wrong in the exponent.
tastytau said:
Lead is effective at attenuating photons because it has a high density and high atomic number. Many photons are attenuated in lead by striking atoms.
Good.
 
What was wrong in the exponent? I have -(0.5 cm-1 x 1.3 cm)

I don't know what else to do with the information given.
 
##e^{-0.5\cdot 1.3} = 0.52## not 3/5. But maybe this fraction just came from too coarse rounding.
tastytau said:
I don't know what else to do with the information given.
Just keep I0 as unknown intensity. You are calculating a ratio of two intensities anyway, it will cancel in this ratio.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top